https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Bug ID: 2352880 Summary: Review Request: plutovg - Tiny 2D vector graphics library in C Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: negativo17@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm Description: PlutoVG is a standalone 2D vector graphics library in C. Fedora Account System Username: slaanesh
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- The software does not have a test suite, so no %check section.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged URL| |https://github.com/sammycag | |e/plutovg
--- Comment #2 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8772855 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #3 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Ignore my last comment; in the end the project can be built with both cmake or meson, and with meson the tests are implemented. Except that then... there are no tests :)
Same with samples, the only sample is a binary called "smiley" which doesn't do anything and is not installed by default.
I've left enabled tests and samples on the %meson command line even if they are a no-op, hoping for future improvements.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #4 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Actually no, the sample program creates a smiley.png where it is run. I've added it to the SPEC file.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |2352883
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352883 [Bug 2352883] Review Request: plutosvg - Tiny SVG rendering library in C
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |benson_muite@emailplus.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |benson_muite@emailplus.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #5 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [ ]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Freetype Project License", "MIT License and/or The Unlicense". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/plutovg/2352880- plutovg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3087 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plutovg- samples [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-devel-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-samples-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp4q4zviqn')] checks: 32, packages: 4
plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smiley plutovg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutovg-samples.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/smiley (RUNPATH: $ORIGIN/..) 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: plutovg-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-samples-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpcv15owya')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5
plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smiley plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutovg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutovg-samples.x86_64: E: binary-or-shlib-defines-rpath /usr/bin/smiley (RUNPATH: $ORIGIN/..) 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings, 36 filtered, 1 badness; has taken 0.8 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sammycage/plutovg/archive/v1.0.0/plutovg-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d4a8015aee9eefc29b01e6dabfd3d4b371ae12f9d5e9be09798deb77a528a794 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d4a8015aee9eefc29b01e6dabfd3d4b371ae12f9d5e9be09798deb77a528a794
Requires -------- plutovg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
plutovg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) plutovg(x86-64)
plutovg-samples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- plutovg: libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) plutovg plutovg(x86-64)
plutovg-devel: pkgconfig(plutovg) plutovg-devel plutovg-devel(x86-64)
plutovg-samples: plutovg-samples plutovg-samples(x86-64)
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352880 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, fonts, Python, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Java, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please list the binary smiley in %{_bindir} rather than globbing, it may cause collisions if it changes
b) Additional licenses seem to be used: Freetype Project License ------------------------ plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/FTL.TXT plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-math.c plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-math.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-raster.c plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-raster.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-stroker.c plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-stroker.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-types.h
MIT License ----------- plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/LICENSE plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/include/plutovg.h
MIT License and/or The Unlicense -------------------------------- plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-stb-image-write.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-stb-image.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-stb-truetype.h
c) A newer version of stb is in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stb If the one in Fedora cannot be used, may wish to ask upstream to update to the newer version and also indicates the bundled stb as a provides in the spec file.
d) Please remove the rpath or perhaps do not package smiley the example application
e) Builds on all architectures https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130395014
f) As a smoke test consider running the smiley binary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #6 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com ---
a) Please list the binary smiley in %{_bindir} rather than globbing, it may cause collisions if it changes
Done.
b) Additional licenses seem to be used: Freetype Project License
plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/FTL.TXT plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-math.c plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-math.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-raster.c plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-raster.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-stroker.c plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-stroker.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-ft-types.h
MIT License
plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/LICENSE plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/include/plutovg.h
MIT License and/or The Unlicense
plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-stb-image-write.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-stb-image.h plutovg-1.0.0-build/plutovg-1.0.0/source/plutovg-stb-truetype.h
Fixed, changed to MIT AND FTL, as unlicense is an optional.
c) A newer version of stb is in Fedora: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/stb If the one in Fedora cannot be used, may wish to ask upstream to update to the newer version and also indicates the bundled stb as a provides in the spec file.
Done, patched to use system stb.
d) Please remove the rpath or perhaps do not package smiley the example application
Done, I added the install of the samples to the meson.build file, that takes care of stripping the path on install. It also simplifies the SPEC file.
e) Builds on all architectures https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=130395014
This is already fine?
f) As a smoke test consider running the smiley binary
Good idea. I added it along with some comment.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #7 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
- Adjusted samples program installation, this simplifies the SPEC file and meson removes the rpath. - Use system stb. - Update license. - Run samples app as part of the tests, until they are properly implemented.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2080703 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2080703&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8772855 to 8783231
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8783231 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(benson_muite@emai | |lplus.org) |
--- Comment #10 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig not called in %post and %postun for Fedora 28 and later. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "Freetype Project License". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora- packaging/reviews/pluto-vg/2352880-plutovg/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [!]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %license. [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 3087 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in plutovg- samples [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-devel-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-samples-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmplezpdari')] checks: 32, packages: 4
plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smiley plutovg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 23 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
Rpmlint (debuginfo) ------------------- Checking: plutovg-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm plutovg-samples-debuginfo-1.0.0-1.fc43.x86_64.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmph8v6y8wi')] checks: 32, packages: 2
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 15 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 5
plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary smiley plutovg-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation plutovg-samples.x86_64: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 36 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/sammycage/plutovg/archive/v1.0.0/plutovg-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d4a8015aee9eefc29b01e6dabfd3d4b371ae12f9d5e9be09798deb77a528a794 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d4a8015aee9eefc29b01e6dabfd3d4b371ae12f9d5e9be09798deb77a528a794
Requires -------- plutovg (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
plutovg-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/pkg-config libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) plutovg(x86-64)
plutovg-samples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libc.so.6()(64bit) libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH)
Provides -------- plutovg: libplutovg.so.1()(64bit) plutovg plutovg(x86-64)
plutovg-devel: pkgconfig(plutovg) plutovg-devel plutovg-devel(x86-64)
plutovg-samples: plutovg-samples plutovg-samples(x86-64)
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/fedora-packaging/reviews/pluto-vg/2352880-plutovg/srpm/plutovg.spec 2025-03-19 12:32:20.375510972 +0300 +++ /homefedora-packaging/reviews/pluto-vg/2352880-plutovg/srpm-unpacked/plutovg.spec 2025-03-18 03:00:00.000000000 +0300 @@ -50,5 +50,5 @@ %meson_test # At the moment there are no meson tests defined and the above command is a no-op, -# so run the sample program as a test: +# so run the samples program as a test: %{_vpath_builddir}/examples/smiley
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2352880 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Perl, fonts, Haskell, Java, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Comments: a) Please add %license source/FTL.txt to the main package b) Other than that seems ok.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #11 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
- Adjusted FTL.txt to %license.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2081243 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2081243&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8783231 to 8801454
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords|AutomationTriaged |
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8801454 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #14 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
- Adjusted FTL.txt to %license (fixed path)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8802907 (failed)
Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide.
- If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #16 from Simone Caronni negativo17@gmail.com --- Build started before the upload finished. Try another time:
Spec URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg.spec SRPM URL: https://slaanesh.fedorapeople.org/review/plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Created attachment 2081287 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=2081287&action=edit The .spec file difference from Copr build 8802907 to 8802978
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #18 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8802978 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #19 from Benson Muite benson_muite@emailplus.org --- Thanks. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #20 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plutovg
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |MODIFIED
--- Comment #21 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa (plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc41) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 41. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed (plutovg-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 (plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc40) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 40. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #22 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed (plutovg-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 10.1. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #24 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c (plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc42) has been submitted as an update to Fedora 42. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #25 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #26 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #27 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c69eb59ff4 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 9 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c69eb59ff4
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 has been pushed to the Fedora 40 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #31 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa has been pushed to the Fedora 41 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #32 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c has been pushed to the Fedora 42 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #33 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 testing repository.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|--- |ERRATA Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Last Closed| |2025-04-07 01:24:29
--- Comment #34 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-6a9ac7fefa (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc41 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc41) has been pushed to the Fedora 41 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #35 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-7f846f5bf4 (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc40 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc40) has been pushed to the Fedora 40 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #36 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-EPEL-2025-c01bde56ed (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.el10_1 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.el10_1) has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 10.1 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2352880
--- Comment #37 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2025-48ecbc670c (plutosvg-0.0.6-1.fc42 and plutovg-1.0.0-1.fc42) has been pushed to the Fedora 42 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com